porky88
13 years ago
For the record, Zero's initial link does provide a look at the 2011 season. I forgot to include it in my post above. Their grade was a 14.5 on Bishop and a -3.1 on Hawk last season. This is based on 916 snaps for Bishop and 960 for Hawk.

Here is the link. It's the big chart in the middle of the article.

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/06/12/secret-superstar-d-j-smith-lb-green-bay-packers/ 

I'll say this, however. I'm not a huge stat guy. I don't mind them. They're a good starting point, but they aren't the end all of evaluating talent. You can find any sort of stat to backup just about any sort of argument.

For example, take the QB rating. A QB completes a five-yard pass on third and eight and that's considered a positive play in how the rating is measured. That's simply not true if there’s an open receiver 10 yards down field. That’s a negative play then.

Bishop does struggle in coverage. I agree with that sentiment. His impact is still felt in other aspects of the game. Hawk's isn't as much, though you can’t measure how good of a job he does at calling out signals.

For the sake of argument, let's argue that Hawk does cover better than Bishop does. It still doesn't change the fact that neither matches up with modern day tight ends. In their defense, nobody can. Patrick Willis can’t. There is just no way to matchup with Jimmy Graham. In 2005, it was just Antonio Gates and Tony Gonzalez. Now it's Gates, Gonzalez, Graham, JerMichael Finley, Vernon Davis, and Rob Gronkowski. They’re simply so many big and versatile tight ends. The position is insane now, which is why I’ll take Bishop's significant advantage in other aspects, especially pass rush, over Hawk’s minor advantage in matching up with players that he also can’t cover.



Dexter_Sinister
13 years ago

For the record, Zero's initial link does provide a look at the 2011 season. I forgot to include it in my post above. Their grade was a 14.5 on Bishop and a -3.1 on Hawk last season. This is based on 916 snaps for Bishop and 960 for Hawk.

Here is the link. It's the big chart in the middle of the article.

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/06/12/secret-superstar-d-j-smith-lb-green-bay-packers/ 

I'll say this, however. I'm not a huge stat guy. I don't mind them. They're a good starting point, but they aren't the end all of evaluating talent. You can find any sort of stat to backup just about any sort of argument.

For example, take the QB rating. A QB completes a five-yard pass on third and eight and that's considered a positive play in how the rating is measured. That's simply not true if there’s an open receiver 10 yards down field. That’s a negative play then.

Bishop does struggle in coverage. I agree with that sentiment. His impact is still felt in other aspects of the game. Hawk's isn't as much, though you can’t measure how good of a job he does at calling out signals.

For the sake of argument, let's argue that Hawk does cover better than Bishop does. It still doesn't change the fact that neither matches up with modern day tight ends. In their defense, nobody can. Patrick Willis can’t. There is just no way to matchup with Jimmy Graham. In 2005, it was just Antonio Gates and Tony Gonzalez. Now it's Gates, Gonzalez, Graham, JerMichael Finley, Vernon Davis, and Rob Gronkowski. They’re simply so many big and versatile tight ends. The position is insane now, which is why I’ll take Bishop's significant advantage in other aspects, especially pass rush, over Hawk’s minor advantage in matching up with players that he also can’t cover.


Originally Posted by: porky88 


Passer rating isn't as much about the yards or even each attempt. It is about efficiency. Scoring TDs, not throwing INTs and yards per attempt. If a QB is consistently failing to convert 3rd downs, he will have a low per attempt average and fewer TDs. So it will effect the over all passer rating in the long run.

I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Dexter_Sinister
13 years ago

For the record, Zero's initial link does provide a look at the 2011 season. I forgot to include it in my post above. Their grade was a 14.5 on Bishop and a -3.1 on Hawk last season. This is based on 916 snaps for Bishop and 960 for Hawk.

Here is the link. It's the big chart in the middle of the article.

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/06/12/secret-superstar-d-j-smith-lb-green-bay-packers/ 

I'll say this, however. I'm not a huge stat guy. I don't mind them. They're a good starting point, but they aren't the end all of evaluating talent. You can find any sort of stat to backup just about any sort of argument.

For example, take the QB rating. A QB completes a five-yard pass on third and eight and that's considered a positive play in how the rating is measured. That's simply not true if there’s an open receiver 10 yards down field. That’s a negative play then.

Bishop does struggle in coverage. I agree with that sentiment. His impact is still felt in other aspects of the game. Hawk's isn't as much, though you can’t measure how good of a job he does at calling out signals.

For the sake of argument, let's argue that Hawk does cover better than Bishop does. It still doesn't change the fact that neither matches up with modern day tight ends. In their defense, nobody can. Patrick Willis can’t. There is just no way to matchup with Jimmy Graham. In 2005, it was just Antonio Gates and Tony Gonzalez. Now it's Gates, Gonzalez, Graham, JerMichael Finley, Vernon Davis, and Rob Gronkowski. They’re simply so many big and versatile tight ends. The position is insane now, which is why I’ll take Bishop's significant advantage in other aspects, especially pass rush, over Hawk’s minor advantage in matching up with players that he also can’t cover.


Originally Posted by: porky88 


The Difference between Hawk and Bishop in coverage is Hawk makes the average QB look average. Bishop makes the average QB look like Aaron Rodgers.

Literally.

I will say and have always said, I like Bishop as a player, I like his hustle, effort, attitude and motor. I can't stand seeing him coverage. I would have rather seen him at OLB last year and kept Smith in the middle for him. That way we could take advantage of Bishops great down hill play, attacking the QB and limit his coverage to short routs.

Unfortunately, now we don't need him there.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
DoddPower
13 years ago
Are there statistics on what assignments players are asked to do? Bishop seemed to be in a lot of man-to-man coverage at times with tight ends and was obviously over matched. If he was so bad, why was he continually asked to do so? That's something I haven't understood yet. A player can only do what their ability allows them to do. I often blame coaches for continually putting certain players in a position to fail. As I said earlier, I'm assuming it's because Caper's had the most faith in Bishop. If not, I can't understand why he wasn't more flexible with his coverage's. If Hawk was truly better, he should have been the one in man to man coverage but instead he was often being "hidden" in coverage. If neither Hawk nor Bishop can handle the responsibilities, keep trying to find a combination of players that work. Making the same unsuccessful calls over and over again doesn't make much sense to me.

EDIT: Dexter, are the main statistics you're using to support that Hawk is better in coverage Rhasaam's (sp?) classification from 13 games in one season? I appreciated his efforts, but they are not concrete. He himself stated Hawk was often hidden in coverage. And of course as I (and a PFT article) said earlier, a rating system such as that is subjective unless he knows every detail of the defensive call (He doesn't. I remember at times saying he couldn't even see certain players and had to guess best he could). Obviously he doesn't know the specifics of every defensive call, who's responsibility was truly what, who actually messed up, etc.

It's a useful insight, but nothing worth forming any concrete opinions on (at least, not for me). Especially to only use his rating system and not factor in even more thorough analysis such as others have posted for an entire season +. You seem to be applying a bias yourself by putting so much stock into a very unofficial and proprietary rating system in hopes of defending Hawk or refuting others (which is fine, we all do things like that). I take it for what's it's worth: useful, but far from definitive.
Zero2Cool
13 years ago
What is this? Desmond Bishop runs circles around A.J. Hawk in coverage. I can't believe this is even remotely being debated! Ok, so Bishop failed in '09 to cover Adrian Peterson and the Packers lost ... that's like blaming a player for not tackling Barry Sanders in the open field.

Class dismissed. 😛
UserPostedImage
Stevetarded
13 years ago

How do they come up with that stat. Does it include giving up a 123 passer rating? Does it include giving up 10 plays of 20+ yards?

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



It includes everything. Though I assume they are in coverage so much less than they are doing other things that it doesn't factor in so heavily. Passer rating is an average so if they only get thrown at 20-30 times over an entire season it's not going to be very reliable. Do you have their raw numbers given up instead of passer rating?
blank
Dexter_Sinister
13 years ago

Are there statistics on what assignments players are asked to do? Bishop seemed to be in a lot of man-to-man coverage at times with tight ends and was obviously over matched. If he was so bad, why was he continually asked to do so? That's something I haven't understood yet. A player can only do what their ability allows them to do. I often blame coaches for continually putting certain players in a position to fail. As I said earlier, I'm assuming it's because Caper's had the most faith in Bishop. If not, I can't understand why he wasn't more flexible with his coverage's. If Hawk was truly better, he should have been the one in man to man coverage but instead he was often being "hidden" in coverage. If neither Hawk nor Bishop can handle the responsibilities, keep trying to find a combination of players that work. Making the same unsuccessful calls over and over again doesn't make much sense to me.

EDIT: Dexter, are the main statistics you're using to support that Hawk is better in coverage Rhasaam's (sp?) classification from 13 games in one season? I appreciated his efforts, but they are not concrete. He himself stated Hawk was often hidden in coverage. And of course as I (and a PFT article) said earlier, a rating system such as that is subjective unless he knows every detail of the defensive call (He doesn't. I remember at times saying he couldn't even see certain players and had to guess best he could). Obviously he doesn't know the specifics of every defensive call, who's responsibility was truly what, who actually messed up, etc.

It's a useful insight, but nothing worth forming any concrete opinions on (at least, not for me). Especially to only use his rating system and not factor in even more thorough analysis such as others have posted for an entire season +. You seem to be applying a bias yourself by putting so much stock into a very unofficial and proprietary rating system in hopes of defending Hawk or refuting others (which is fine, we all do things like that). I take it for what's it's worth: useful, but far from definitive.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 



No, some are from the MJS report that came from numbers released by the team. The 9 passes of 20 or more yards are one example.

Like I said previously, I like Bishop. I wish every one played with his hustle, effort and attitude. He is a great down hill attacking defender. He plays on the other side of the line of scrimmage a lot. I wish we could have solved the OLB issue with him. It would have kept him out of coverage down field and let him play to his strengths.

However, I can't stand to see a guy getting burned that badly in coverage.

The passer rating system doesn't reflect the total quantity. It doesn't give any credit to total attempts or total yards. The only thing that it covers is efficiency. Per attempt yards, TD% and INT%. Giving up the 10 plays of 20 or more yards will have a fairly large impact on the passer rating.

Even if a player is "hidden" in coverage and not targeted often, his passer rating should not reflect that. Every time they found him and targeted him, you would get a rating. It wouldn't matter if that was based on being targeted 40 times or 10 because it is all ratios.

I think the passer rating system is not well understood and is consequently dismissed out of hand.

So my question is, since a lot of people didn't really give any credit to or even notice that Bishop was getting torched that badly in coverage, regardless of Capers failing to hide him or not, what should we use to form a concrete opinion of Bishops coverage. The biased eye test? If Bishop needed to be hidden that badly, was he really all that great of an all around LB like people are saying.

I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Stevetarded
13 years ago

Passer rating isn't as much about the yards or even each attempt. It is about efficiency. Scoring TDs, not throwing INTs and yards per attempt. If a QB is consistently failing to convert 3rd downs, he will have a low per attempt average and fewer TDs. So it will effect the over all passer rating in the long run.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



So post their coverage stats, stop with the passer rating. Lets see em.
blank
Dexter_Sinister
13 years ago

It includes everything. Though I assume they are in coverage so much less than they are doing other things that it doesn't factor in so heavily. Passer rating is an average so if they only get thrown at 20-30 times over an entire season it's not going to be very reliable. Do you have their raw numbers given up instead of passer rating?

Originally Posted by: Stevetarded 



You know what happens when you assume?

Sometimes you're wrong.

I didn't see anything in their ratings that included pass coverage. In fact, most of their rating seemed to be based on impact plays on the other side of the LOS. Which would be the smallest portion of a LBs responsibility.

Not even considering the fact that Hawk was the lead blitzer in their cross dog blitz. Making him take on O-linemen and leaving Bishop free with just a RB to slow him down. Hawk still managed 15 pressures and 2 batted passes to Bishop's 20 pressures and 0 batted passes. I saw nothing showing how well they did in pass coverage in that rating.

I posted a link to it last time. Raashan explained all his work. I would have to search for it.



I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Dexter_Sinister
13 years ago
UserPostedImage

This was originally posted by RaashanSaalami.

It is through 12 games and Bishop was injured the next 3 and Hawk was injured the next 2. So they are a bit incomplete but they give a solid picture of most of the games they played.

For kicks, look at Clays numbers. I was stunned.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Fan Shout
dfosterf (25-Jul) : It's my one day deal complaint dept. on shareholder meeting day
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Probably a homer access credential intimidation kinda thing
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Meathead "journalists" skip this, concentrating on operational revenue when convenient. They switch when net revenue is more favorable.
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Resulting in an actual drop of net revenue of 12.5%. She is from Minnesota. Just sayin'
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Any plans to hold Maureen Smith (CFO) accountable for a 95% drop in investment revenue?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : In your face, HBO!
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @ByRyanWood Mark Murphy: “A great source of pride of mine is that we were never on Hard Knocks.”
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : *years
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @mattschneidman Mark Murphy says he anticipates “many Packers games” being played in Germany, Ireland and/or the U.K. over the next 5-10 yea
dfosterf (25-Jul) : *cafeteria* I have hit my head also, so I sympathize
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Possibly hit his head leaning into the glass protecting the food in the cafateria
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Maybe a low flying drone
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Did Savion Williams run into a goalpost or something?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : also, no bueno when a guy starts getting concussions right off the bat in his career
Zero2Cool (25-Jul) : Concussion is worse. Banks probably vet off day via back booboo claim
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @AndyHermanNFL Jordy Nelson out at camp today. No word if he’s in play for one of the two open roster spots ; )
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Is that better or worse than Banks bad back?
Zero2Cool (25-Jul) : Savion concussion ... not good.
packerfanoutwest (24-Jul) : Aaron Rodgers’s first pass of first team period was picked off
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : tbh I didn't hear of his passing
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Cosby Show. Malcom Jamal Warner I think is real name
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : I was thinking of Ozzy and Hulk
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : Who's Theo?
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : How is Theo alliteration?
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : Bad week for people whose names are alliterations
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Hulk Hogan gone too.
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Oh, it's toe injury
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Hope it's not serious. that would stink
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Sounds like an ankle not a knee for Fields
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Ya Flaccp on Browns
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Maybe Tyrod Taylor instead
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : He's on Browns, right?
dfosterf (24-Jul) : They would probably go with Flacco is my guess if Fields out
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Fleece 'em again!
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Malik Willis might be someone Jets come after
packerfanoutwest (24-Jul) : Packers introduce 1923-inspired classic uniform, leather-look helmet
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Both LB Quay Walker and Rookie DB Micah Robinson have passed their physicals
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Happy to see site feels more snappy snappy
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : No sir. I did not.
dfosterf (23-Jul) : You didn't get free childcare when you were at work?
wpr (23-Jul) : These guys make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Pay for their own childcare.
dfosterf (23-Jul) : 2nd issue. Number 1 issue was no gameday childcare. 1 of 3 teams not providing it
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Suppose if locker room is main issue, we sitting pretty
wpr (23-Jul) : I thought so Mucky. In those useless player polls GB always rates high overall. Locker is a part of it.
Mucky Tundra (23-Jul) : Wasn't the locker room just updated like 6 or 7 years ago?
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : I have forum updated on different site. We'll see how this one goes before going to that
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : Elgton Jenkins has a back injury, is expect to end contract dispute
wpr (23-Jul) : It's funny the PA complained about the locker room. It wasn't that long ago it was top shelf. Things change in a hurry.
wpr (23-Jul) : The site is much more better.
Zero2Cool (23-Jul) : NFLPA report said Packers lockerroom needed upgrade. Whining bout where you change?
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
25-Jul / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

25-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

24-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

22-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.